' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above mentioned identical Civil Petitions Nos.2844 to 3008 of 2001, which have arisen from judgment, dated 28-7-2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
2. Brief facts are that in an earlier round Civil Petitions Nos.950 to 1113 of 2001 were brought before this Court by -the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan and others against Bank-employees therein.
The sole grievance expressed in those petitions was that the following observation made by the Chairman of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment therein was based on an erroneous assumption of fact:-- ' During the course of hearing, the departmental representative candidly submitted that the income-tax recovered from the employees will be reimbursed to them..."
' Those petitions were disposed of with the following observations:-- "10. Needless to observe that in the connected petitions brought by the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan and others against the respondent/employees, the sole grievance, of the petitioners therein is that the observation of the learned Chairman of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment to the effect: ' "....During the course of hearing, the departmental representative candidly submitted that the income-tax recovered from the appellants will be reimbursed to them", is based on erroneous assumption of fact in that neither any counsel for the bank nor any representative of the bank made any statement before the Tribunal during the course of proceedings that income-tax will be reimbursed to the respondents/employees. With consent of Mr. Fakhrudin G. Ibrahim, Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Mr. M. Bilal and Mr. K.M.A. Samdani learned counsel for the parties, we remit the case to the Tribunal to examine this question fresh in the light of the affidavit of Mr. Abdul Aziz, Deputy Director, Human Resources Department, State Bank of Pakistan, copy whereof may be forwarded to the Tribunal, after hearing the parties and holding such inquiry as the Tribunal may deem fit. If it is established that no such statement was made as attributed to the departmental representative of the Bank, the above observation shall be deleted otherwise it shall remain intact."
3. In the post remand proceedings, the Tribunal after holding the requisite inquiry came to the conclusion that the representative of the petitioner-Bank had, in the presence of -the learned counsel for the parties, made the statement attributed to him i.e, 'that the income-tax recovered from the employees will be reimbursed to them....'. Paragraph 4 of the judgment makes the following reading:-- "4. As far as my person (Chairman) is concerned, I vividly remember that it was stated and candidly submitted by the departmental representative of the respondent-Bank in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties and the appellants present in the Court on the date of hearing i.e, 11th October, 2000. The matter is disposed of accordingly."
4. Taking exception, the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan and others have filed the present petitions to challenge the validity of the observations resulting in dismissal of the appeals by the Tribunal.
5. We have heard Khawaja Saeed uz Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and examined the material available on record. The observations made in the impugned judgment leave no room for doubt that the requisite inquiry was in fact conducted by the Tribunal as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The contention of the learned counsel to the contrary is devoid of substance. The findings recorded by the Tribunal have set a factual controversy at rest and the same cannot be re-opened in these proceedings.
6. As regards the contention that the difference of opinion between the learned Members of the Tribunal needs resolution, we suffice by observing that the appeals were remanded to the Tribunal only to examine the specific question as to whether the representative of the petitioner-Bank had made the statement attributed to him or not. This being so, the above question cannot be permitted to be agitated in these proceedings. More so, when it was observed that: "if it is established that no such statement was made as attributed, to the departmental representative of the Bank, the above observations shall be deleted otherwise it shall remain intact." (Underlining is for emphasis).
7. Resultantly, the petitions are dismissed and leave declined.